Jumped into the middle of an arguement and feel the need to get involved.  The following is a quote from the discussion.  Any ideas on how to reply?

"Am I the only liberal who is not aware of or a part of this massive liberal conspiracy?

Can you factually back up your claim that there is some sort of massive liberal media bias conspiract, because that just does make sense when you look at who actually owns the TV stations.

Look at like ABC, who is owned by Disney, the same Disney that tried to stop the release of F911, the same Disney who's CEO has basically stated that he will do anything possible to get Bush reelected?

Look at NBC, who is owned by GE, the same GE that makes conventional and nuclear missiles? Since corporates are bent on profit motive, do you think NBC is pro or against war?

Thats just a few examples. This idea of a liberal media bias seems as ridiculous as the idea of an international jewish banking conspiracy or something.

O'Reilly hasn't done jack, other than give people like you quotes and "facts" that you can repeat and feel smart about"

Thanks for any opinions...

It's more of a mindset than a conspiracy.


The liberal bias is just built into their psyche, indoctrination dating back to their schooling

Disney's CEO said he would do anything to get Bush reelected?

Quoted: Disney's CEO said he would do anything to get Bush reelected?

+1

Quoted: It's more of a mindset than a conspiracy. The liberal bias is just built into their psyche, indoctrination dating back to their schooling

Being a former journalism student, You sir are 100% right.

Quoted: Quoted: It's more of a mindset than a conspiracy. The liberal bias is just built into their psyche, indoctrination dating back to their schooling Agreed.  No conspiracy needed. Just look at the stem cell controversy.  Bush banned taxpayer funded research.  The media would have you believe, with their propaganda, that all such research is illegal, and some of the talking heads would have you believe that George W Bush could have saved Christopher Reeve. The bias isn't a liberal bias, so much as it is a statist bias - that government is the best answer for many problems that arise. I have to wonder how much privately funded stem cell research is occuring.

Hey sKerry said at the debate(#2) that he wanted stem cell research so that he could help Chris Reeve, than a couple days later the guy dies. How conveniant.............

When journalists are polled according to WND article 5 to 1 endorse Kerry.

Why did 87% of news persons vote Demo? Ummmm.....

That said, you ever hear of RatherGate, The ABC memo, The "I-LIE" Controversy... etc...

The list is extensive and long but that is a good place to start. Mostly the "massive liberal conspiracy" consists of a thin veil of news blackouts. Instead of showing all the good that is going on in Iraq, they only give a USGI body count. The most damming evidence of media bias is found _not_ in what THEY REPORT, but in what THEY _DO NOT_ THINK IS NEWS.

If it is good news for Bush, its not news worthy. The Duelfer Report on Iraq’s WMD program is a prime example. Read the report, then look at what made the news and what did NOT.


-LS

CNN > Time Warner > Ted Turner > Hanoi Fonda.

LA Times, NY Times, etc. just read their editorial page. Their bias is obvious.

And while NBC, ABC, and CBS are owned by "pro-Repub" companies, they do not dictate how their news branchs run, in the name of journalistic neutrality. But the bias is obvious.

Ask the dipshit to respond to the ABC News Director's 'Get Bush' memo, that broke this weekend.

Ask the dipshit to respond to the CBS Faked memos, Rather's incessant reporting of same, AND the fact that even now, a month later, the batshit-crazy "producer" Mary Mapes is STILL working at CBS ON the national guard story.

Read: "BIAS" By Bernard Goldberg... run a search on Amazon.com

The parent companies that own those stations may be pro Bush, but the men and women in charge of the day to day operation are not.  This has been documented time and again. Attention has been brought upon this issue by the recent Rathergate scandal, but it goes back decades.  The members of the media who consider themselves enlightened have decided that the great unwashed do not know what is good for them, that they are misguided.  They have conspired to lead us to their version of the truth.  Never mind that it is a rotting, thinly veiled lie, designed only to cover their true intentions.  They believe that a country such as ours has too much freedom and is a danger to the world because we might actually inspire similar ideas among oppressed nations.  That idea scares them.  Having no courage or faith themselves, they believe the same of everyone else and fear free thought and individualism.  

They want to destroy the spirit of mankind in order to subjugate it.  In order to accomplish this, they must disarm us and eliminate that which binds us.  If we have no faith in God, to any degree, what are we?  Merely creatures upon the earth with no future and no hope.  No belief in a loving and merciful God means no purpose.  No independent thought.  They want a centralized system of control over every aspect of our lives.  They believe with one pasture and one shepherd we will all be obedient sheep.  That is contrary to the nature of man and it will never work.

How every tiny detail of Bush guard service (which he never talks about) is constantly discussed.  A forged memo from one man makes headline news, but hundreds of Kerry's comrades denounce his service and no one talked about it till they bought air time.
If you can't see it, you are just blind.  
How not one aspect of Kerry's 20 years in the senate has ever been talked about on any of the major news services.  
Gee, I wonder why this is?

Well here is the latest liberal reply:
Big Deal? It is a big deal when these people are in control all the media assets that they own. You fail to realize that Disney releases a lot of adult orientated movies worse than F911, just under the name Miramax. (Maybe you need to do your research). There may be a lot of celebrities that are liberal, but the power of these celebrities is ridicously less than the power of the rich CEOs which own the companies and tend to be conservative.

You are damn right that suicide bombing are going to get all the news, especially when people are killed by the dozens. The news does report that, but the issue that both few people care and there is little measure by which you can measure success. The best thing so far is the soccer team which got a hell of a lot of press. When Iraq can actually have a stable election I will bet you that it will be heralded as a monument of success by the press, but for now the country is so out of control that it wont work. That isnt success. There is little measurable success, there is as much bad stuff going on as good stuff.

I have to laugh at the comment “Are you also aware that more Americans are killed every year in the United States than have been killed in the ENTIRE Iraq war?” because you fail to think far enough to realize that there have been ~1250 times less people in Iraq than there are in the US. (pop of US 250, 000, 000 divided by a fair guess that there have been 200,000 US service people in Iraq == 1250). To put that terms of the US that would be like 1.25 million people died because of the actions of the president (hey I am just following your logic, I realize it is faulty).

If there was a liberal media, why wouldn’t they be showing all the bad stuff that is going on in Afghanistan. The most I hear about it on CNN is that they voted and there is some controversy. Why don’t they talk about the fact that the majority of the country is controlled by warlords and that opium is making a big come back over the farmers. Why has the media dropped the hunt for bin Laden in the same manner as the president?

All you can bring is a few pieces of anecdotal evidence when you are trying to prove some kind of massive conspiracy. I realize my prior post was borderline, but you have a huge burden of proof here.

I could come back at you in the manner you came at me and ask, if there is a huge liberal bias, why did the press attack the Clinton as viciously as the did in the Lewinsky case?

You two feel the need of saying “Doesn't it feel good sticking it to a blind, one-sided liberal?”, yet you don’t see the falacy of this statement, because you guys are accusing me of the same crime you are commiting.

There is no liberal media, there is no conservative media. The media is just this entity bent on a profit motive. If it means exploiting a scandal that is on everyone’s minds like Iraq or Lewinsky it will do it. There is no profit in showing the good side of Iraq just as much as there is no profit in showing that there is a huge genocide happening in Sudan.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this one...